Rowan v. United States Post Office Department

1970-06-15

Headline: Law letting householders block sexually provocative mail and requiring mailers to remove names from lists is upheld, allowing residents to stop all future mailings from specific senders.

Holding: The Court affirmed that a householder may require a mailer to remove the householder’s name from mailing lists and stop all future mailings, holding the statute constitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Real World Impact:

Lets householders force mailers to stop all future mailings and delete names from lists.
Requires publishers and mailing-list companies to remove named recipients on demand.
Gives Post Office authority to enforce compliance and trigger court actions if violated.

Topics: unsolicited mail, privacy in the home, objectionable advertising, mailing lists

Summary

Background

Appellants are publishers, distributors, mailing-list brokers, and mail-service businesses who challenged a 1967 federal law that lets a householder tell the Postmaster General that certain mailed advertisements are "erotically arousing or sexually provocative." Under the statute a householder can request an order directing a sender to stop sending mail to that address and to delete the addressee’s name from all mailing lists the sender controls.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the law violated the senders’ free speech or due process rights, or was unconstitutionally vague or confiscatory. The Court balanced the mailer’s interest in communicating against the householder’s interest ‘‘to be let alone’’ and concluded that a mailer’s right stops at an unreceptive mailbox. The Court found adequate procedural protections: the Postmaster General may issue a prohibitory order, the sender gets notice, an opportunity to respond, an administrative hearing, and a court process before contempt or enforcement. The requirement to delete names from lists was held not to be a taking without due process, and the statute gives clear, practicable duties to mailers.

Real world impact

The decision affirms that householders nationwide may force specific senders to stop all mailings and have their names removed from mailing lists. Commercial mailers and mailing-list businesses must comply with such orders or face administrative proceedings and possible court enforcement. The judgment upholds the statute as a lawful tool to protect privacy and minors from unsolicited sexually provocative materials.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Douglas, concurred and warned that subsection (g) allowing parents to include minor children under nineteen in orders could raise constitutional questions about older children’s rights; that issue was left open.